[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amritpal Singh And Another vs Ramandeep Kaur And Another on 18 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-42-2024(O&M); and
XOBJ-19-2024(O&M)
Reserved on: 25.02.2026
Pronounced on: 18.04.2026
Amritpal Singh and another
... Appellants
Versus
Ramandeep Kaur and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. R.D. Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
The instant appeal has been instituted by Amritpal Singh and
Ram Kishan (driver and owner of car bearing registration No.PB-65-M-
8941), assailing award dated 08.05.2023, passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (for short, 'the MACT'), vide which
the claim petition instituted by one Ramandeep Kaur for the grant of
compensation on account of injuries and permanent disability suffered by
her in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 07.04.2018, was
allowed and compensation of Rs.6,70,850/- was awarded, and the liability to
pay the same was fastened upon the driver and owner of the offending
vehicle. The claimant-injured has also instituted cross-objections, seeking
enhancement in compensation.
FAO-42-2024(O&M) & XOBJ-19-2024(O&M) 2
2. Briefly stated, a claim petition was instituted by one
Ramandeep Kaur under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, 'MV Act'), claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of
injuries and permanent disability suffered in a motor vehicular accident,
which took place on 07.04.2018. It was averred that on 07.04.2018, at about
7:00 pm, Ramandeep Kaur was going to Village Badali from her Village
Madanheri with her cousin Manjit Kaur on an Activa scooter, which was
being driven by Manjit Kaur and Ramandeep Kaur was the pillion rider.
When they reached near Badali, a car bearing registration No.PH-65-M-
8941 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle'), being driven by
respondent No.1 (Amritpal Singh), came at a high speed from the opposite
side, in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the scooter. As a
result of the same, Ramandeep Kaur and Manjit Kaur fell down on the road
and suffered injuries. Ramandeep Kaur suffered injuries on her right leg and
various other parts of the body. She was taken to Civil Hospital, Kharar,
from where, she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh.
3. FIR No.39, dated 18.04.2018, was registered at Police Station,
Kharar, under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 427 IPC.
4. It was averred that Ramandeep Kaur was 24 years old and was
unmarried at the time of accident. She was claimed to have been working as
a Supervisor-cum-Manager in Ceragem Health Care Centre, Mohali, earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. It was averred that she suffered fracture of both
bones of her right leg apart from other multiple serious injuries and suffered
permanent disability to the extent of 27%. It was averred that she had
incurred expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- on her treatment. It was also averred that
FAO-42-2024(O&M) & XOBJ-19-2024(O&M) 3
she had suffered a huge loss in earning, earning capacity, future prospects,
expenditure on medicines, conveyance and special diet, loss of social status,
mental agony, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of future life,
expenditure on attendant charges etc. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
was claimed as compensation.
5. Respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle, opposed the
claim petition. The factum of accident was denied. It was averred that the
accident had, in fact, taken place between Activa scooter and one three-
wheeler bearing registration No.PB-65-F-3853. It was averred that the video
of the accident had been recorded at the spot by the public and the said video
had been downloaded by the answering respondent, and photographs of the
accident had also been clicked.
5.1 It was averred that the offending vehicle was insured with the
New India Assurance Company Limited from 23.05.2017 to 22.05.2018.
The same was a third party insurance. When the officials of the insurance
company were approached to take the pictures of the accident, they refused.
5.2 It was averred that whereas the alleged accident had taken place
on 07.04.2018, the FIR had been registered on 18.04.2018 and, therefore, the
possibility of manipulation and connivance could not be overruled.
5.3 It was also averred that the offending vehicle had struck a tree
on the same evening, i.e. 07.04.2018, while its driver Harjit Singh was trying
to save the vehicle from a stray cow. Respondent No.1 had, as a result of the
same, received injuries.
6. The Insurance Company filed a separate written statement
raising its usual defences. The factum of the accident was denied. It was
stated that the insurance company was not in a position to admit as to
whether the offending vehicle was insured unless a copy of the insurance
policy was placed on record.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed:-
"1. Whether Ramandeep Kaur had sustained injuries in a motor
vehicular accident which took place on 7.4.2018 at about 7 P.M. in the
area of Village Badali, due to rash and negligent driving of car
bearing registration No.PB-65-M-8941, by respondent No.1? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
4. Whether the respondent no.1 was not holding valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR-3
5. Relief."
8. Parties led their respective evidence.
9. Vide award dated 08.05.2023, the MACT found that the
accident, as a result of which injuries and permanent disability had been
caused to the injured-claimant, had taken place on account of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1.
10. On quantum, the age of the insured was assessed as 24 years.
Her monthly income was assessed as Rs.9,000/- per month. 40% was added
as future prospects. Considering the permanent disability of 27%, the
functional disability was assessed at 20%. The loss of income was, therefore,
worked out to be Rs.5,44,320/-. Apart from the same, Rs.13,000/- was
awarded on account of pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards attendant
charges, Rs.20,000/- towards special diet and Rs.15,000/- under the head of
transportation. Accordingly, the compensation was assessed as under:-
Sr. No. Age 24 years
1. Period of Hospitalization 8.4.2018 to 26.4.2018
2. Occupation and Income Treated as skilled labourer. Income
including future prospects
Rs.1,51,200/- per annum.
Pecuniary Expenses
i. Medicines 21,522/-
ii. Future medical expenses 20,000/-
iii. Special diet 20,000/-
iv. Transportation charges 15,000/-
v. Pecuniary loss of income 5,44,320/-
vi. Attendant charges 20,000/-
Non-Pecuniary Expenses
i. Physical pain, sufferings, 30,000/-
mental agony and amenities
of life.
Total Rs.6,70,842/- (Rounded of
Rs.6,70,850/-)
11. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the
MACT had erred in fastening the liability of paying the compensation upon
the appellants. It was argued that the MACT did not consider the very
important fact that the alleged accident took place on 07.04.2018, whereas
the FIR was registered on 18.04.2018, and no explanation for the said delay
had been given. It was argued that this in itself would show that the
offending vehicle had been introduced with the connivance of the police
after indulging in manipulations.
12.1 It was argued that the MACT also wrongly fastened the liability
to pay the compensation upon the appellants. It was argued that the MACT
did not examine the proposal form from the right perspective. It was argued
that the proposal form duly contained the date from which the vehicle had
been insured and the date till which the same was insured and it also
FAO-42-2024(O&M) & XOBJ-19-2024(O&M) 6
mentioned the premium to be paid. It was argued that the said premium had
been paid in cash and, therefore, there was no occasion for the MACT to
hold that there was no valid policy of insurance.
12.2 It was also argued that it had been proved on record that the
accident had, in fact, taken place with an auto rickshaw and photographs of
the accident were also produced, but were not considered by the MACT.
12.3 On quantum, it was argued that excessive compensation was
granted by the MACT.
13. It was, therefore, argued that the award is not sustainable and
the same deserves to be set aside.
14. Learned counsel for the cross-objector submitted that the
monthly income had been assessed on the lower side, whereas it had been
proved on record that the injured is a highly skilled person. Reference was
made to the oral and the documentary evidence led on the record of the case.
It was also argued that the functional disability was erroneously assessed at
20%, whereas it should have assessed at more than 30%.
14.1 It was also argued that inadequate compensation was granted
under various heads, including pain and suffering, transportation, special
diet, attendant charges, and further no compensation was granted on account
of loss of marriage prospects. It was argued that the marriage prospects of
the injured had been severally impacted on account of permanent disability
suffered by her.
15. Learned counsel representing the insurance company submitted
that there is no illegality in the findings recorded by the MACT insofar as
the liability to pay the compensation is concerned. It was argued that neither
FAO-42-2024(O&M) & XOBJ-19-2024(O&M) 7
the policy of insurance nor the receipt of payment etc. had been produced on
record to show that some premium had been paid by the appellants. It was
argued that a proposal form can never be said to be a policy of insurance, as
the proposal form is followed by a cover note and then a policy of insurance.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the
decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Reliance Life Insurance
Company Ltd. and another v. Jay Wadhwani, 2024 INSC 10 [in
SLP(Civil)-10954-2019, decided on 03.01.2024], and a coordinate Bench
of this Court in Charat Singh v. Rajveer Kaur and others,
2022:PHHC:115355 (in FAO-2064-2012, decided on 08.09.2022).
16. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the record.
17. Each issue shall be taken up one by one. The first issue which
would arise for consideration is as to whether the accident, as a result of
which Ramandeep Kaur suffered injuries and permanent disability, had
taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by respondent No.1 or was the case a made up story, as alleged by
the appellants.
18. Concededly, after the accident, the injured was firstly taken to
the Civil Hospital, from where she was referred to PGI Chandigarh. Ex.P9 is
the discharge and follow up card of PGI Chandigarh, as per which
Ramandeep Kaur remained admitted in PGI from 07.04.2018 to 26.04.2018.
FIR No.39 dated 18.04.2018 was registered on the statement of Ramandeep
Kaur. The police proceedings duly show that information about Ramandeep
Kaur being admitted in PGI Chandigarh was received on 07.04.2018 itself.
FAO-42-2024(O&M) & XOBJ-19-2024(O&M) 8
The police officer went to PGI Chandigarh on 10.04.2018 when he was told
that the owner of the car was wanting to settle the matter and that if the
matter was not settled, the FIR would be registered. Since the matter could
not be settled, the FIR was registered on 18.04.2018. The delay in
registration of the FIR, therefore, duly stood explained.
19. Even otherwise, with the nature of injuries suffered by
Ramandeep Kaur, the primary focus would have been to get treatment done
rather than getting an FIR registered. The treatment record shows surgeries
having been undergone by Ramandeep Kaur and permanent disability of
27% having been suffered by her.
20. Not only this, after investigation of the matter, final report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P16) was filed in the Court, pursuant to
which charges were also framed on 08.03.2022 (Ex. P17).
21. Further, Ramandeep Kaur duly stepped into the witness box as
PW1 and deposed in detail about the manner in which the accident had taken
place. Despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing came on record which
could have supported the case of the respondents.
22. Under the circumstances, the MACT committed no illegality by
holding that the accident, as a result of which Ramandeep Kaur had suffered
injuries and permanent disability, had taken place due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by Amritpal Singh.
23. In so far as the story put forth that the accident had taken place
with a three wheeler and that the offending vehicle independently struck a
tree was not proved on record. The photographs etc. were not proved in
FAO-42-2024(O&M) & XOBJ-19-2024(O&M) 9
accordance with law. There was no evidence to support this theory. Under
the circumstances, the MACT rightly rejected the same.
24. Now coming to the issue of liability to pay the compensation,
the only thing that was produced on record was a proposal form (Ex.R4/A).
The witnesses produced by the insurance company, namely, RW4 Vijay
Kumar stated that the proposal form did not bear his signatures and did not
pertain to his office. He denied his signatures on the said proposal form. He
stated that the bifurcation of premium was never given in the proposal form.
He clarified that a proposal form is filled only when a client comes to their
office and after verification and payment of premium, the policy is issued. It
was also stated that the stamp of risk date is never put on the proposal form.
25 To prove that the same was a genuine document, no other steps
were taken by the appellants. No expert was examined to prove that the
signatures on the proposal form were that of RW4. No receipt of payment
was produced. No policy of insurance or even a cover note was produced.
Under the circumstances, the MACT rightly held that the vehicle was not
insured. The findings of the MACT on this aspect are as under:-
"33. So far as the liability of the respondents to pay the
above said compensation is concerned, it stands already proved
on record that respondent No.1 Amritpal Singh was driver and
respondent No.2 Ram Kishan was owner of the offending
vehicle at the time of accident in question. Further, in this
claim petition, claimant has impleaded respondent No.3 New
India Assurance Company as insurer of the offending vehicle
bearing No.PB-65-M-8941 at the time of accident in question.
Even while appearing in the witness box as RW2, respondent
No.1 Amritpal Singh has deposed that Maruti car bearing
No.PB-65-M-8941 was insured with the New India Assurance
Company Limited from 23.5.2017 to 22.5.2018. He has further
deposed that after receiving the payment, insurance policy by
affixing office seal and signatures was issued by the insurance
company and copy of which is on record and the same was
third party insurance policy. In order to rebut the evidence of
respondents No.1 and 2, respondent No.3 insurance company
has examined RW4 Vijay Kumar, Micro Incharge, Micro
Office, New India Assurance Company, Opposite Magnolia
Hotel GT road Kartarpur, who deposed on oath that he is
working as Micro Incharge in the aforesaid office since 2012,
which is single window office. He further deposed that he has
seen Proposal Form Annexure R-2 placed on record, which
does not bear his signatures and does not pertain to his office.
The signatures at the seal at Point A are not of him. The
bifurcation of premium at Point-B is never given in their
proposal forms. When, any client comes to their office, then
proposal form is filled and thereafter they verify the
registration certificate of that vehicle through under writing
officer, whom he is only and then immediately they issue the
insurance policy, after getting the premium that can be
through cheque or cash. They never affix the stamp of risk
date i.e at Point C on the proposal form. The proposal form is
accepted and signed with date. They never issue the proposal
form to the client because this is not insurance document. The
Annexure R-2 has never been issued from his office and is not
signed by him. He is the only signing authority. Though this
witness RW4 Vijay Kumar has been cross examined at length
by respondents No.1 and 2 as well as by claimant, but nothing
fruitful could be elicited from his mouth, which could prove
that the document i.e Proposal form Ex.R4/A has been issued
by any official cr agent of the respondent No.3 Insurance
Company. Even otherwise, this document Ex.R/A is only a
proposal form and it is not a Insurance policy. Further
respondent No.2 Ram Kishan owner of the offending vehicle
has also failed to prove on record any document to show that
he has made the payment of premium for issuance of insurance
policy of the offending vehicle. So, in these circumstances, this
Tribunal is of the considered opinion that at the time of
accident in question, the offending vehicle was not insured with
RAJAN respondent No.3 Insurance Company. Accordingly,
respondents No.1 and 2 being driver and owner of the
offending vehicle, are liable to pay the above said amount of
compensation to the claimant, jointly and severally. This issue
stands decided in favour of the claimant accordingly."
26. This Court does not find any illegality in the aforesaid findings,
as a proposal form simplicitor would not, under any circumstance, prove that
the vehicle was insured. It is a matter of common knowledge that even when
a cover note is issued, it is followed by a policy of insurance. Still further,
once the insurance company had denied that the proposal form had not been
issued by its office, it was incumbent upon the appellants to have led
evidence to prove that the premium had been paid by them and that the
document (Ex.R4/A) was a genuine and valid document. In taking this view,
I draw support from a decision of the Apex Court in the case(s) of Reliance
Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another v. Jaya Wadhwani (supra),
wherein it was held as under:-
"15. In the present appeals, we do not find any such issue of
back dating but the date of issuance of the policy would be the
relevant date for all the purposes and not the date of proposal
or the date of issuance of the receipt. In view of the above, the
stand taken by the appellant is approved. The impugned
orders are thus liable to be set aside."
27. This Court is also in agreement with the decision of a
coordinate Bench in Charat Singh's case (supra), wherein a similar view
was taken:-
"4. A perusal of the document, which has been placed on
record by way of CM No.12403-CII of 2012 as additional
evidence, which is also a part of the record before the Tribunal
and forms part of Exhibit R-2, clearly shows that this is a mere
proposal form. It has been clearly stated in the form that risk
will commence on the date and time of acceptance of risk
and/or issue of cover note/policy. It is, therefore, apparent that
it is not a policy of the insurance, nor the offending vehicle can
be said to have been insured on the basis of this proposal.
There is no other evidence on record which could establish that
the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.7-
Insurance Company on the date of the accident, i.e.,
22.08.2010. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal holding
respondent No.7-Insurance Company not liable to pay the
compensation, does not call for any interference."
28. Under the circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere
with the findings recorded on the said issue by the MACT.
29. Lastly coming to the quantum, the age of the injured was found
to be 24 years. Her income was assessed as Rs.9,000/- per month. The
claimant had claimed that at the time of accident, she was working as a
Supervisor-cum-Manager in Ceragem Health Care Centre Mohali, earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. However, no evidence was produced on record to
prove the said employment and income. She did produce on record
certificates pertaining to her academic qualification and other courses, which
did show that she was a skilled person, having cleared her secondary school
examination (Ex.P2), a certificate course in computer application (Ex.P3),
certificates showing her having undergone courses in embroidery (Ex.P5 &
Ex.P7) and also having undergone a course of beautician (Ex.P8). The
MACT, therefore, assessed her to be a skilled worker. Accordingly, her
monthly income was assessed at Rs.9,000/-.
30. In the cross-objections, it has been averred that the minimum
wages for a highly skilled worker were Rs.10,561/- per month and even for a
skilled worker they were Rs.9,529/- per month and not Rs.9,000/- per
FAO-42-2024(O&M) & XOBJ-19-2024(O&M) 13
month. This fact has not been controverted. Taking her to be a skilled
worker, the income is assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month. Taking an addition
of 40% on account of future prospects, the monthly income comes to
Rs.13,300/- (9,500+3,800). The annual income, therefore, comes to
Rs.1,59,600/- (13,300x12).
31. Coming to the permanent disability, as per PW2 Dr. Sanjeev
Kamboj, she had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 27% with
regard to her whole body, as her right leg/knee had fractured. The disability
certificate was produced on record as Ex.P10. There was nothing stated that
there were chances of improvement or not. Considering that the claimant
had been treated to be a skilled worker, the functional disability was
assessed at 20%. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no error in
the same, as, on account of permanent disability, the claimant would still be
able to do a lot of other works and the functional disability would, therefore,
be 20%. The loss of income would, therefore, be 20% of Rs.1,59,600/-,
which comes to Rs.31,920/-
32. The multiplier of 18 was rightly applied, as she was 24 years
old. The loss of income on account of the permanent disability would,
therefore, come to Rs.5,74,560/- (31920x18).
33. Now coming to the other heads, the compensation on account
of pain and suffering deserves to be enhanced to Rs.75,000/- from
Rs.30,000/-. Attendant charges were rightly granted at Rs.20,000/-. There is,
therefore, no requirement of enhancement in the same. Compensation on
account of special diet can be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- from Rs.20,000/-. For
transportation Rs.15,000/- were awarded, which, in the considered opinion
of this Court, would be sufficient. No compensation was granted for loss of
marriage prospects. In the considered opinion of this Court, a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- would be payable under the said head. The amount for
medicines etc. was rightly granted at Rs.21,522/- as per the bills submitted.
Future medical expenses were awarded as Rs.20,000/-, which is enhanced to
Rs.50,000/- as such injuries require further operations. Under the
circumstances, the compensation is re-worked as under:-
Sr. Heads of Claim Awarded by MACT Enhanced
No. compensation
i. Income assessed Rs.9,000/- p.m. Rs.9,500/- p.m.
(Rs.1,08,000/- p.a.) (Rs.1,14,000/- p.a.)
ii. Future Prospects 40% No Change
iii. Multiplier 18 No Change
iv. Multiplicant Rs.1,51,200/- Rs.1,59,600/-
(Rs.1,08,000/- +40%) (Rs.1,14,000/-
+40%)
v. Functional disability 20% 20% (No change)
vi. Pecuniary loss of Rs.5,44,320/- Rs.5,74,560/-
income due to (1,51,200x.2x18) (1,59,600x.2x18)
permanent disability
vii. Pain and suffering etc. Rs.30,000/- Rs.75,000/-
viii. Attendant charges Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
(No change)
ix. Special diet Rs.20,000/- Rs.25,000/-
x. Transportation charges Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
(No change)
xi. Loss of marriage Nil Rs.1,50,000/-
prospects
xii. Medicines Rs.21522/- Rs.21,522/-
(No change)
xiii. Future medical expenses Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.6,70,842/- Rs.9,31,082/-
(Rounded of (Rounded of
Rs.6,70,850/-) Rs.9,31,100/-)
34. The total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs.9,31,100/-.
After deducting a sum of Rs.6,70,850/- as assessed by the MACT, the
balance compensation comes to Rs.2,60,250/-. This amount would be
payable in addition to the amount assessed by the learned MACT along with
interest @ 7.5% annually. The disbursal and liability to pay the same would
be as per the award.
35 In view of the findings on the other issues, the liability to pay
the same would be that of the appellants.
36. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the cross-objections
stand disposed of.
37. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
( VIKRAM AGGARWAL )
JUDGE
April 18, 2026
Rajan
uploaded on: 21.04.2026
Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
